You are here: / Criminal Law
,

NOTE: THIS CASE WAS REVERSED BY THE US SUPREME COURT ON JANUARY 20, 2022, BASED UPON A VIOLATION OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE; IN AN EXHAUSTIVE DECISION WHICH DISCUSSED ONLY THE CONVOLUTED FACTS OF THIS MURDER CASE, THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION, OVER A DISSENT WHICH CALLED INTO QUESTION THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an extensive, detailed, exhaustive rendition of the convoluted facts in this murder case, over a dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient. The victim was a two-year-old child in a van who was struck by a stray bullet. Major issues were whether the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated and whether the jury was made aware that one of the eyewitnesses had identified a person other than the defendant, Morris, as the shooter. Morris was initially charged with the murder and went to trial which ended in a mistrial. He then pled guilty, against his attorney’s advice, to an apparently unrelated possession of a weapon charge. The shooting took place in 2006. Defendant was arrested and indicted in 2013 and went to trial in 2015. The majority appeared to rely heavily on evidence of consciousness of guilt (the defendant gave up a business in New York and fled to North Carolina). People v Hemphill, 2019 NY Slip Op 04646, First Dept 6-11-19

In an important opinion from the United States Supreme Court released January 20, 2022, and revised January 21, 2022, Hemphill’s conviction was reversed on the ground his right to confront Morris, who was not available to testify, had been violated by allowing the Morris’s plea allocution to be introduced in evidence. The stray bullet came from a 9mm weapon. The defense argued Morris was the shooter. After Morris’s murder trial ended in a mistrial, Morris pled guilty to possession of a .357 revolver. The plea allocution was allowed in evidence to “correct” the defense’s “misleading” argument that Morris was the shooter. Hemphill’s conviction was affirmed by the New York State Court of Appeals, over a dissent by Judge Fahey. People v Hemphill, 2020 NY Slip Op 03567, 35 NY3d 1035 CtApp 6-20-20

The violation of the Confrontation Clause warranted reversal by the US Supreme Court. 1/20/22 20-637 Hemphill v. New York

 

,

ANY BRADY VIOLATIONS WERE NOT “MATERIAL” IN THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE JURY’S VERDICT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon the People’s failure to turn over Brady material relevant to the impeachment of a key prosecution witness (JA), and the prosecutor’s failure to correct that witness’s testimony, should not have been granted. The opinion includes a detailed recitation of the evidence which can not be fairly summarized here. In a nutshell, the Court of Appeals held that any Brady violation that might have occurred, in light of the extensive impeachment evidence forcefully used by defense counsel, the violation was not “material” in that it could not have affected the verdict:

… [D]efendant brought [a] CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction … . … [D]efendant asserted that the People had violated their Brady obligation by failing to turn over evidence that there was an agreement to confer a benefit on JA in exchange for his testimony at defendant’s murder trial. In addition, defendant asserted that the trial prosecutor personally intervened in JA’s burglary case by procuring his release without bail during the June 13th drug court appearance, failed to correct JA’s trial testimony to specify that she was the “DA” who participated on June 13th, and failed to correct his characterization of his performance as ‘good’ in the drug treatment program … . * * *

“To make out a successful Brady claim, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material” … . In New York, where a defendant made a specific discovery request for a document, and the information was not disclosed, we measure the third prong of the materiality of the suppressed Brady material by considering whether there is a reasonable possibility that disclosure of the evidence would have changed the result of the proceedings … . In the absence of a specific request by defendant, materiality is established if there is a “reasonable probability” that the result would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed — meaning ” a probability sufficient to undermine the court’s confidence in the outcome of the trial’ ” … . * * *

In determining that a Brady violation occurred, the Appellate Division failed to do the required materiality analysis as to the suppressed information. * * *

… [T]o say that there was ample impeachment evidence at trial against the witness on multiple levels is an understatement. … [T]here is no reasonable possibility that the knowledge that the trial prosecutor was the specific ADA who stood up for the People at the June 13th appearance and that JA was still in a drug program despite additional program violations — leaving treatment and bringing cigarettes into a facility — would have changed the jury’s verdict. People v Giuca, 2019 NY Slip Op 04642, CtApp 6-11-19

 

,

APPEAL OF THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL ISSUE FORECLOSED BY THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL; THE STATEMENT-SUPPRESSION ISSUE FORECLOSED BY THE WAIVER OF APPEAL; THE CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL ISSUE WAS ABANDONED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted: (1) the statutory speedy trial issue is foreclosed by defendant’s guilty plea; (2) the statutory speedy trial issue is foreclosed by the waiver of appeal; (3) the statement-suppression issue is foreclosed by the waiver of appeal; and (4) because defendant pled guilty before Supreme Court decided the constitutional speedy trial issue that issue was abandoned. People v Hardy, 2019 NY Slip Op 04555, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS REQUIRE THE SAME BLOCKBURGER TEST FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the test for double jeopardy under the state constitution is the same as under the federal constitution:

“Under the Federal Constitution, double jeopardy arises only upon separate prosecutions arising out of the same offence’ ” … . The United States Supreme Court employs a “same-elements” test, also known as the Blockburger test (Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299 [1932]), that “inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the same offence’ and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution” … . Here, the elements of DWI (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]) and leaving the scene of a property damage incident without reporting (see § 600 [1] [a]) are not the same; among other things, a person does not need to be intoxicated to be found guilty of leaving the scene of a property damage incident without reporting, and does not need to cause property damage to be found guilty of DWI. …

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clauses in the State and Federal Constitutions are nearly identically worded, and we have never suggested that state constitutional double jeopardy protection differs from its federal counterpart” … , the Court of Appeals set forth the Blockburger test, not the same conduct test, when analyzing a defendant’s claim that the double jeopardy clauses of both the Federal and State Constitutions barred a subsequent prosecution. We therefore conclude that the constitutional double jeopardy analysis is the same under federal and state law, and that there is no constitutional double jeopardy violation here … . Matter of McNerlin v Argento, 2019 NY Slip Op 04554, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT’S DETERMINATION THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT IS NOT REVIEWABLE AFTER A CONVICTION BASED UPON LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that appellate review of a court’s determination of the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury is not reviewing upon appeal of a conviction based upon legally sufficient trial evidence:

Defendant’s contention regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the operability of the stun gun is not preserved for our review inasmuch as her motion for a trial order of dismissal was not ” specifically directed’ at [that] alleged” deficiency in the proof … . In any event, the evidence, which included the testimony of a firearms examiner who tested the device at issue, viewed in the light most favorable to the People … , is legally sufficient to support the conviction. …

County Court’s determination with respect to the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is “not reviewable upon an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction based upon legally sufficient trial evidence” (CPL 210.30 [6] …). People v Washington, 2019 NY Slip Op 04553, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

COUNTY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT DEFENDANT USED HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH A WITNESS TO PRESSURE HER NOT TO TESTIFY, THE WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined County Court properly determined the defendant pressured a witness to refuse to testify at trial. Therefore the witness’s grand jury testimony was properly admitted in evidence:

Defendant contends that County Court erred in determining, following a Sirois hearing, that the People presented clear and convincing evidence that defendant “wrongfully made use of his relationship with the victim in order to pressure her to violate her duty to testify” … . …

The People presented evidence that the missing witness was ready and willing to testify while defendant was in jail during the grand jury proceedings but became reluctant after defendant was released and the trial date drew closer. Days prior to the trial, the witness’s mother observed the witness leave with defendant and their child for several hours. When the witness returned to the mother’s home, the witness “started talking about the subpoena that she had received. Started saying things like they can’t do anything to me if I don’t show up. The subpoena wasn’t served properly. There’s nothing that they can do if I don’t show up to court. Things of that nature.” The mother reported to the prosecutor that she had never heard the witness use legal terminology like that before. …

Defendant’s relative also observed the witness in defendant’s home during the time in which law enforcement officers were attempting to locate her on a material witness warrant. Further, although the prosecution never informed the witness of the updated trial schedule following the witness’s failure to appear, the witness appeared at court two days after the Sirois hearing “at the perfect moment to save defendant from the impending admission of her damning grand jury testimony” … . People v Haile, 2019 NY Slip Op 04547, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND SITTING ON THE BACKSEAT OF A POLICE CAR WHEN HE WAS ASKED QUESTIONS, INCLUDING WHETHER HE HAD BEEN DRINKING, BY THE OFFICER WHO MADE THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN THE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant, although handcuffed and seated on the backseat of a police car, was not in custody such that his answers to questions, including whether he had anything to drink, should be suppressed. The officer observed defendant commit several traffic infractions, then the defendant got out of the car, staggering. The defendant would not stop and go back to his car when the officer told him to. When the officer caught up to him he smelled alcohol. The officer then handcuffed the defendant and had him sit on the backseat of the police car with his feet outside the car on the ground:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that his answers to the sergeant’s questions were not the product of a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. ” It is well established that not every forcible detention constitutes an arrest’ ” … and, under the circumstances noted above, we agree with the court that the sergeant’s use of handcuffs did not transform the detention into a de facto arrest. Rather, the sergeant’s use of the handcuffs to effect the detention was warranted in light of the threat that defendant might take additional evasive action … .

We further conclude that seating defendant on the back seat of the police vehicle did not transform the sergeant’s questioning into a custodial interrogation. The sergeant lawfully, although forcibly, detained defendant for investigatory purposes based on his observation of defendant committing several traffic infractions … . Given defendant’s visible intoxication, staggering gait, and prior evasive actions, a ” less intrusive means of fulfilling the police investigation’ ” than seating defendant partially in the police vehicle ” was not readily apparent’ ” … . Here, the sergeant’s “action fell short of the level of intrusion upon defendant’s liberty and privacy that constitutes an arrest” … . In addition, the sergeant’s questions were investigatory rather than custodial in nature … . People v Mcdonald, 2019 NY Slip Op 04546, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

SUPPRESS SUPPRESSION

,

BLOCKING THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS A JUSTIFIABLE LEVEL TWO INTRUSION, THE SUBSEQUENT LEVEL THREE INTRUSION WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE INFORMATION KNOWN TO THE POLICE AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT STARTED TO GET OUT OF THE CAR AS THE POLICE APPROACHED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the blocking of the car in which defendant was a passenger by parking at the entrance to the driveway was only a permissible level two intrusion:

The charges against defendant arose after the police, who were investigating a recent stabbing, encountered defendant in a vehicle matching the description and anticipated location of the stabbing suspect’s vehicle given in a police dispatch.

We conclude that the police conduct was justified in its inception and at every subsequent stage of the encounter leading to defendant’s arrest … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, the police action in pulling up behind the subject vehicle, which had parked in defendant’s driveway after passing the officers’ patrol car, constituted only a level two intrusion … despite the fact that a police vehicle blocked the subject vehicle’s egress from the driveway … . The police at that point had the requisite founded suspicion to justify the level two intrusion.

The police escalated the encounter to a level three intrusion when they approached defendant, who had begun to exit the vehicle, and ordered him to remain in the vehicle … . Evaluating the totality of the circumstances … , we conclude that the police conduct was justified by the officers’ reasonable suspicion that defendant was the suspect described in the dispatch … . The officers found defendant less than two miles away from the scene of the stabbing, which had occurred approximately 20 minutes earlier. Defendant’s gender, race, height, and weight matched the description of the stabbing suspect. Furthermore, witnesses at the scene of the stabbing informed the police that the suspect left the scene in a small silver vehicle driven by a black female and that the vehicle may have been headed toward a residence on Mark Avenue. Defendant was a passenger in a silver vehicle driven by a black female, and the driveway in which the driver parked the vehicle was 50 to 75 yards from Mark Avenue. People v Pettiford, 2019 NY Slip Op 04620, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS, DE BOUR

, ,

A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR A PAT SEARCH; HOWEVER THE SMELL OF MARIJUANA, ABOUT WHICH THE OFFICER TESTIFIED, WOULD JUSTIFY A SEARCH; BECAUSE THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT RULE ON THE MARIJUANA-SMELL ISSUE, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that, although the suppression court determined the police officer had a founded suspicion of criminality when he ordered defendant out of the car, a founded suspicion of criminality did not justify ordering the defendant to place his hands on the patrol car in preparation for a pat search. However. the officer testified he smelled marijuana, which would justify and search. Because the court did not rule on that issue, the matter was sent back for a ruling:

Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer observed that there were two occupants, one of whom, i.e., defendant, was moving around in the backseat and putting his hands in his front pocket as if he was “stuffing something either in his coat or in his pants as if to conceal it from [the officer].” … The officer asked the driver and defendant for identification and thereafter learned that the driver’s license of the driver had been revoked and that defendant did not have a driver’s license.

The officer directed defendant to exit the vehicle and place his hands on the patrol car so that the officer could conduct a pat search. Defendant exited the vehicle as directed but thereafter fled, discarding components of a 9 millimeter Glock semiautomatic pistol as he ran. …

Because the driver pulled over of his own volition before the officer activated his emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop, the officer needed only an articulable basis to lawfully approach the occupants of the vehicle and request information … . That basis was supplied by the officer’s observation that the vehicle was being operated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a) (1) … . Thus, the officer’s conduct “was justified in its inception” … .

The court determined that the officer had a founded suspicion of criminality prior to ordering defendant to exit the vehicle for the pat search. A founded suspicion of criminality standing alone, however, was insufficient to justify the officer’s conduct in ordering defendant to place his hands on the patrol car in preparation for a pat search … . Nevertheless, in making its determination, the court credited the officer’s testimony that he smelled fresh marihuana emanating from the vehicle and was experienced in detecting marihuana. It is well settled that “[t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants”  … . People v Green, 2019 NY Slip Op 04608, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT COMPLAINED THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD NOT FILED OMNIBUS MOTIONS BUT DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID HE HAD FILED THEM AND THE COURT SAID IT HAD RECEIVED THEM; IN FACT, HOWEVER NO MOTIONS HAD BEEN FILED; DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that defendant’s complaints about his assigned counsel were sufficient to warrant further inquiry by the court:

… [D]efendant “articulated complaints about his assigned counsel that were sufficiently serious to trigger the court’s duty to engage in an inquiry regarding those complaints”…  At a pretrial appearance, defendant requested that the court assign him new counsel because, among other things, defense counsel had failed to file discovery demands and omnibus motions. After defendant’s request, defense counsel erroneously stated, “[t]hose were filed already,” and the court stated, “I have them here. I’m holding them in my hand.” However, the People concede that, although certain discovery demands were served on the People, defense counsel never filed any omnibus motions.

Upon being told that omnibus motions had been filed, defendant informed the court that he had never received them. The court replied, “Well, that’s a different issue, okay? So you’ve got to get a copy of your paperwork, all right? What else?” The court never conducted an inquiry into defendant’s serious complaint that defense counsel failed to file any omnibus motions and, instead, proceeded under the mistaken belief that they had been filed. Although “[t]he court might well have found upon limited inquiry that defendant’s request was without genuine basis, . . . it could not so summarily dismiss th[at] request” based on a mistaken belief that omnibus motions had been filed … . Thus, we conclude that the court violated defendant’s right to counsel by failing to make a minimal inquiry concerning his serious complaint, and we therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial … . People v Edwards, 2019 NY Slip Op 04537, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy